It's only going to get worse from here.

Any form of blanket surveillance on private citizens is BAD news. Once recorded, the information either from wiretaps or cameras is retained and becomes a vast database that scoops up many more blameless law-abiding people than it does criminals. As another poster pointed out. The widespread use of CCTV in Britan has done little to assist with crime clearance rates. A recent study showed that cameras do discourage crime in their vicinity. However, the criminal acts simply move to a location that isn't covered by a camera.

While I'm on the subject of security leeching away liberty. I recently saw an article showing an individual with an RFID smart card marked "CLEAR" that allowed him to skip the line at TSA checkpoints. It's intriguieng to see constant reposts of "over zealous" TSA officials making up their own laws and generally making life hell for ordinary citizens (I don't think they've caught a single terrorist yet)

I firmly believe that this "CLEAR" card is the vanguard for an implanted RFID chip that will relieve the suffering of those travelling by air in the US. Once they've softened you up with over zealousness, think of how relieved you'll be to waft through security while your RFID chip tells the TSA everything they want to know. So simple.

Some downsides however. Some criminal may have scanned your unsecure RFID in the line and is now cleaning out your bank accounts. In addition to that, your every move can now be tracked. Think of the fun you'll have when you're arrested for merely being scanned in the vicinity of an anti-government protest.:D
 
it's a force multiplier for the police.
Click to expand...

There we go, confusing police with military. That angers me. Police do not need a force multiplier.
Click to expand...

You're right ... there's plenty of police out there ... :rolleyes:.

So I feel properly set straight. This is a very dangerous slippery slope, and one that we are already too far down.

The UK, on the other hand, is flying downwards like an out of control skier.

Thanks all for the thoughtful and kind replies ... and even for the not-so-kind but honest replies. ;)
 
So like I meet this hot babe and we head behind the dumpster for a little romance...totally invisible from the street...is it still public lewdness if only the camera sees?:)

What a wonderful SCOTUS case! :eek:

WildiknowitsevidencehoweverwhenswmbowalksbehindthedumpsterandplayshidethekatanainmyskullAlaska TM
 
DC is probably preparing for the anarchy that its administration figures (incorrectly) will be unleashed when the Supreme Court finishes taking a proper look at the second amendment.

These cameras in the UK are linked to face identification software- the result, from a civil liberties point of view is scarey.
 
I've been thinking about this ...

UK has been culturally moving towards a place where mere citizens take no responsibility for their security or the protection of their property. The laws forbid what in the US would be normal self defense. Living in that situation ... you want to be watched by the police every minute, because that's the only protection you have. Cameras are good. Tracking is necessary. The nanny state takes care of everything.

In the US we still expect people to fight back when attacked, defend their homes (at least until the police get there), etc. And in 40 states we allow citizens to arm themselves with the most lethal concealable weapons available and give them laws that promote self defense (at least as compared to UK, where you can get arrested for tackling a purse thief).

For some reason the DC government, which has a population that is anything but genteel, is trying to push their culture in that direction. How does that work? How is the government so liberal and nanny state with such a non-genteel population?

Let's hope we never get there. I'll accept the slightly higher level of violence in the US if it means an empowered culture where people stand on their own two feet and aren't afraid to fight for what is theirs/for what they believe.
 
As I watch the Brits (from this side of the pond) I can't help but think of the movie "V for Vendetta." They're moving that way, as are we but they're way ahead of us. I only hope we are able to learn from their idiocy.
 
Re: The possibility of lawsuits against officials for invasion of privacy, related to surveillance cameras. Why it won't happen. Can't wait for certain members to make snarky comments as to how this won't be possible legally, yet making no mention of freedoms lost.:rolleyes:

Ron Paul just authored an insightful article on this topic. Highlights the immunity from prosecution granted to participants in the electronic snooping network. Notes that powers obtained under "terror fighting" motives are being misused for other purposes; Spitzer example.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst040708.htm

The Emerging Surveillance State

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.

Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. [In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.

The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.

We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.
 
Cameras do not fight crime. Cameras record images. That's it. Recorded images can place people at an area at a certain time, after the fact, if a good enough image is recorded. The camera does not actively intervene, nor does it warn, nor does it summon aid. The absolute best a camera can do is help to positively ID and possibly help convict the person who brutally murdered you. That won't help you much, now will it?
 
Cameras do not fight crime. Cameras record images. That's it. Recorded images can place people at an area at a certain time, after the fact, if a good enough image is recorded. The camera does not actively intervene, nor does it warn, nor does it summon aid. The absolute best a camera can do is help to positively ID and possibly help convict the person who brutally murdered you.
Click to expand...

If someone is intent on murdering and doesn't care about the consequences, if someone wants to do a suicide bombing ... you're right, the camera has no effect whatsoever except to give the TV news some images to broadcast.

But like most articles on this subject show ... crime moves away from the areas with camera to areas out of camera surveillance.

How does this help me? It means that even though I may have to be cognizant of where the cameras are, if I'm catching the subway in DC as long as I stay in view of the cameras I'm relatively safe -- because criminals aren't stupid and they don't want to get caught. And if something does happen and cameras are being monitored, I'll probably have help arrive sooner than with no cameras.

I will continue to fight camera in neighborhoods, on the street, etc.

But as for cameras in public owned building with little police protection, such as subway, I'm still no agin' 'em.
 
Most of their cameras will be broken in a few weeks, and all they will have learned is that some guy in a hoodie did it.
 
Anyone know if these cameras will be monitored or just recording?

I can't imagine there would be a control room with people starring at monitors like the streets are the floor of a casino...


Edit to add...I re-read the article and it says they will be monitored. sorry.
 
Last edited:
And that is just the point. Panopticism. A situation where everyone knows they may be being watched, but they can never know for sure.

It's the most cost effective way to keep the population under control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top