southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 So how do people feel about this? To me this is pretty similar to giving the government the ability to spy on people all of the time. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/92811,C...bside12.article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) So how do people feel about this? To me this is pretty similar to giving the government the ability to spy on people all of the time. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/92811,C...bside12.article Don't like it. Also don't like traiifc cameras. Glad I am not in Chicago very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think these two have something to hide. Perhaps they are terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I think its getting excessive. I am OK with targeted enforcement with a camera, because its no different than cops on patrol in terms of intrusion (targeted meaning specific high crime areas, or intersections with a lot of accidents and school zones for traffic enforcement). But to attempt to blanket the city in cameras is no longer analogous to police patrol - its too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) I think its getting excessive. I am OK with targeted enforcement with a camera, because its no different than cops on patrol in terms of intrusion (targeted meaning specific high crime areas, or intersections with a lot of accidents and school zones for traffic enforcement). But to attempt to blanket the city in cameras is no longer analogous to police patrol - its too far. That's the first time I have hearg that analogy, and I like it. I've never been a fan of any cameras, but that has me thinking that in a specific place, for a specific reason, based on a specific need, with a specific time frame, and perhaps appoved like a search warrant, I could see agreeing it is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) That's the first time I have hearg that analogy, and I like it. I've never been a fan of any cameras, but that has me thinking that in a specific place, for a specific reason, based on a specific need, with a specific time frame, and perhaps appoved like a search warrant, I could see agreeing it is a good thing. If its a public space, you don't need a search warrant. Police don't need a warrant to patrol and observe what goes on in plain sight. But otherwise, yes, I agree - specific use of cameras for targeted observation and enforcement are OK by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I dont see why this is a big deal. The minute you walk into any establishment you are under constant survelliance. Go to Europe, where they already have some of this type of survelliance up already. If it can save lives and help solve crimes go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 It's a little science fiction-y. Orgy porgy food and fun, kiss the girls and make them one. Boys at one with girls at peace, orgy porgy gives release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) I dont see why this is a big deal. The minute you walk into any establishment you are under constant survelliance. Go to Europe, where they already have some of this type of survelliance up already. If it can save lives and help solve crimes go for it. Someone else's establishment is a private business, and they can do whatever they want. That is different than public spaces. I think most people are OK with it in general... its just a question of how far is too far. To me, one on "every corner" is way, way too far. Continuing the police analogy... having a cop on every corner would probably reduce crime, but it also means we live in a police state (i.e. Israel), and I am not sure I'm comfortable with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) If its a public space, you don't need a search warrant. Police don't need a warrant to patrol and observe what goes on in plain sight. But otherwise, yes, I agree - specific use of cameras for targeted observation and enforcement are OK by me. Under current lawsyou do not. I do not wish to live in a society where we are under constant 24/7 survelience. I have not committed a crime and do not wish to be treated like a criminal. I think it is creepy that the government wants to watch me anytime I am in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I'm fine with it. If I'm innocently walking in a public place and become a victim of some asshole, I want there to be evidene of what happened to me. Small price to pay. Just think of the things that may not have happened or the adults and children that would be alive today if this was already in use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Under current lawsyou do not. I do not wish to live in a society where we are under constant 24/7 survelience. I have not committed a crime and do not wish to be treated like a criminal. I think it is creepy that the government wants to watch me anytime I am in public. You are already under 24x7 survelliance. You think those birds in space flying around are not taking pictures of you. As I was told a long time ago. Assume everything you say on the phone, or type on the internet or you do out in public is public domain and you are fine. I never believe for a second that outside of my house I am not under watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Under current lawsyou do not. I do not wish to live in a society where we are under constant 24/7 survelience. I have not committed a crime and do not wish to be treated like a criminal. I think it is creepy that the government wants to watch me anytime I am in public. That was my point. I don't want on on every corner either. But you also cannot force warrants for targeted, plain sight surveillance because its already legally acceptable - in the form of police officers. The reason for that, by the way, is that police have the same legal ability to observe things in plain view that any other citizen can. You cannot take that away from the police and not regular citizens. Police officers and other citizens are intended to be on an even playing field in that sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) That was my point. I don't want on on every corner either. But you also cannot force warrants for targeted, plain sight surveillance because its already legally acceptable - in the form of police officers. The reason for that, by the way, is that police have the same legal ability to observe things in plain view that any other citizen can. You cannot take that away from the police and not regular citizens. Police officers and other citizens are intended to be on an even playing field in that sense. The rights that police have were given to them, through our legislative process. I don't see a reason to treat cameras the same as a police officer. While I accept that a live person can be there and observe, I draw the line at being recorded on camera in a public place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I don't really care about the rights issues involved here, but what a waste of tax revenue. What good will it do to have 10,000 cameras? Can it stop crime before it happens? No. Is it going to help solve crimes that do happen? Probably not. Just a big ol' waste of money. Hmm. Daley wasting money. That's new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) The rights that police have were given to them, through our legislative process. I don't see a reason to treat cameras the same as a police officer. While I accept that a live person can be there and observe, I draw the line at being recorded on camera in a public place. So you are OK with a cop on the corner, but not a camera? I don't get that. And again, when it comes to standing there observing things, a police officer has no more authority or right to that action than any other citizen - by design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts