Watching You For Your SAFETY, RIGHT!?

X

xrageofangelsx

New member
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/17/nypd_installing_lots.html

Half-Life 2 almost becomes a reality....

nypdcam.jpg



Monday, April 17, 2006
NYPD installing lots of surveillance cams -- but don't snap back.
New York City's police department is placing 500 surveillance cameras throughout the city, at a cost of $9 million, in an effort to prevent crime and terrorism. Hundreds more cams will follow if $81.5 million in requested federal grants comes through. The additional funds would be used to build a surveillance "ring of steel" designed after a similar system in London's financial district. And we all know how perfectly London's surveillance cam system has protected that city.

Link to AP item by Tom Hays, which includes the predictable line, "Police officials insist that law-abiding New Yorkers have nothing to fear because the cameras will be restricted to public areas." (Thanks, A.V.)

In related news, the NYPD may be snapping images of you, but don't try to snap back. From the Village Voice:

[P]olice evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them?particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges. On March 27, two volunteers from the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives were detained for taking pictures of police officers' private cars, which were parked on the sidewalk outside the Fifth Precinct in Chinatown. The volunteers say they were held and questioned at the precinct for about 20 minutes and instructed to erase the pictures.

"It was intimidating. I was afraid they were going to arrest me," says Brian Hoberman, 37, who works as a researcher for the city's Rent Guidelines Board.
 
My only response to this is...

Who cares? I certainly don't. I don't live in New York, but if I did I don't think it would bother me. If you aren't breaking the law then why would you care?
 
Either that was sarcasm or a prime example of what's wrong with this nation and this age.

Whatever, I suspect those things will be shot off the pole relatively soon. That's what happened to the traffic cams around here...
 
Read the book 1984. Then go spend some time in New York. Then come home and read it again. After that you will be thankful you don't live there.

What do you expect from a city that requires you to have a permit to keep a gun in your home! I'm surprised you don't have to have a permit to bang your wife in that city.
 
And how would cameras deter a suicide bomber?

You know how to invalidate $81.5 million in cameras? The $2 bandanas that gangbangers wear anyway.

How many additional cops could you pay with $81.5 million? I would think enough for about every street corner on Manhatten island.
 
Im dying to see the argument on how PUBLIC cameras infringe on anyones "rights"...

Would you argue against a cop standing on a street corner watching?

You dont like cameras? Vote em out

WildhewhowantsgetsAlaska
 
You know how to invalidate $81.5 million in cameras? The $2 bandanas that gangbangers wear anyway.
Click to expand...
That's easily fixed - outlaw wearing any hat/scarf/bandanna/balaclava that covers or obscures the face in any way. If people freeze and catch pneumonia during the winter months, to hell with them! The politicians and police need control!!
 
What they can't see, they can't control

Im dying to see the argument on how PUBLIC cameras infringe on anyones "rights"...
Click to expand...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated..."
- Article 4, Bill of Rights

The NSA listens in on international phone calls where one of the parties is Al Queada or linked to Al Queada and everybody throws a sh*tfit; the politicians and police want to watch and record your every move - but that's just fine and dandy. WTFO??

Surveillance of the people is not about "safety," it's about control. What they can't see, they cant control.

Newsflash: A nation of free people do not have their every move tracked and taped by "The Government." There's that annoying Fourth Amendment thing...
 
What???

How is having cameras in public places comparible to illegal search and seizure? They are in public. I've been to New York a few times. How many people look up from the sidewalk anyways? If you aren't robbing the local 7/11 then who cares? Please explain to me how this infringes on anyones rights? There are many things illegal in public that aren't in your own home. You can walk around all day buck naked in your own home. This doesn't give you the right to do it in public. On the other hand, it is perfectly legal for the NYPD and the City of New York to place cameras wherever they want in public as long as the property they place them on is owned by the city. It would be very illegal to place them in your home, but they aren't doing that. If you don't like it then either move or stop doing things you should't be doing anyways, in public.
 
Last edited:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
Click to expand...

Watching someone in public isnt a search.

WildsothereitisAlaska
 
It seems to me that watching our every move in public places is both an unreasonable course of action and a huge waste of money and man hours. Why not spend that money on putting more police officers on the streets?

Cameras will not prevent crime - police officers on the street will. Just my opinion.
 
That's easily fixed -
That's easily fixed - outlaw wearing any hat/scarf/bandanna/balaclava that covers or obscures the face in any way. If people freeze and catch pneumonia during the winter months, to hell with them! The politicians and police need control!!
Click to expand...

While they're at it, they can outlaw hooded coats & jackets as well as umberllas - after all, they will interfere with the camera's ability to conduct surveillence and identify potential criminals & terrorists.

Where does it stop??
 
Yeah I don't see how public cameras constitute a search. It's legal for anyone to photgraph or film people in a public place. You're already being filmed in just about every store now, some are just more subtle in their camera placement than others.

It doesn't violate anyone's rights. I don't like 'em either, don't get me wrong. I hate being watched but I can't really see much of an argument against it either.
 
As a photographer, I hear about and read an endless string of stories about photographers being harassed, badgered and sometimes physically attacked for doing nothing more than making photographs in public places. The majority of such incidents involve police officers, security "officers" with no police powers, and rent-a-cops, also with no police powers. This is all justified under the pretext of "fighting terrorism."

I find it disturbing that the right of ordinary citizens to photograph in public places is under attack, while at the same time the government is instituting nonstop surveillence of citizens in public places.

I'm still not convicned that nonstop government surveillence of citizens in public places is not a violation of the individual's right to be free from unreasonable search.

If that's okay, then why is it not okay for the government to listen to your phone conversations and read your e-mail? If you have nothing to hide, why do you care??

Where does it stop??
 
My issues with cameras in PUBLIC is not an issue with privacy. Citizens really have no right to expect privacy in public. If cameras are proven to deter crime, then I"m for them to an extent. If they don't deter crime, then I'm against them.

The real issue is the expense. I suspect that nothing deters and solves crimes quite like true good old fashioned police work. Cameras seem to create laziness and lack of ingenuity or developing any detective or crime solving skills. This means you can hire less qualified and lazy people to watch cameras or look at tapes. Then when these fail to detect or deter crime, where are we?
 
One Negative is, a Cop walking a beat or standing on a street corner can intervene in a moment, whereas a man or even a squad of TV watchers who monitor hundreds (thousands??? millions???) of CCTV's must relay information to someone else who might, at some later point, be able to at least get the name of the victim... if they can still talk... as for the criminal? Probably long gone from the scene.

BUT, at least they're safe... Who's safer you ask? The Cops or the citizens paying the bill? I dunno.

Doesn't the UK have something like a million CCTV's within their society at this point? All this means is that soon we'll have half of society waching the other half.

But if it saves just one child's life... that'll be a very lucky child, doncha think?

Call me a cynic, for that I have become in my doddering golden years :rolleyes:
 
Leadcounsel...

you make very good points. I agree with you. to me it also seems like a waste of the American publics hard earned tax dollars. The only point I was arguing is that there is no way this can be veiwed as an illegal search and seizure. As someone else already pointed out, about 90% of the time you are in public, you are already being photographed and videotaped. Anytime you walk through a large retail store or mall you are being videotaped. In many of todays cities, if you run a red light, you are more than likely being photographed and will recieve a ticket in the mail. Once again, if you aren't stealing clothes from the local wal-mart or running red lights all over town, then who cares?
 
The big concern I have with surveillance cameras is the ol' slipperly slope argument. I believe people have a right to expect that agencies of the government will not be covertly observing them without good reason, even in a public place. Clearly it's different if the government suspects you of being involved in criminal activity, but most Americans expect to be able to go about their normal business free from the watchful eye of Big Brother. Once it becomes acceptable for Big Brother to watch you at all times in public places, it becomes easier for Big Brother to justify surveillance in places where one has a greater expectation of privacy... in a bar, for instance. Suppose the NYPD decided that discrete surveillance of gunstores was a good way to identify possible terrorists, and placed cameras outside your favorite gun emporium. Would you feel comfortable going in and out of that store knowing your picture might end up in some police department file of possible terrorists? :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top