Government Cameras

[Texsox]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9662&tag=nl.e539

With New York planning to put in another 3,000 surveillance cameras and monitor all license plates coming into the island of Manhattan at 20 entrances with its Operation Sentinel, travelers and residents should not only get over any indignation at being snooped on to this extent by police, in their neighborhood(s). They instead should get with the program.

 

So says no less an authority than lawyer Norman Siegel, who was director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, from 1985 to 2000.

 

Basically he states that all the citizen cameras keep the government in check, especially the police.

 

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

We are fast becoming like England, which isn't good.

[Balta1701]

We are fast becoming like England, which isn't good.

Hey, if they can monitor my emails and phone calls while I'm in my home without a warrant, then what's wrong with them monitoring every step I take outside?

 

In all seriousness...I'd like to hear an argument for why this is a bad thing. When I'm outdoors in a public place I'm almost by definition sacrificing any thought I'd have of legit privacy. Why should I expect that I'm not being filmed? And why is it worse for a government to have access to that sort of video when an ATM camera or a security camera at a business can come up with the same data?

[Texsox]

Balta,

 

I'll take a stab at articulating a feeling about this.

 

I agree that when we are outside walking around we understand we are losing some privacy. We know that other people may see us. That happens in real time and there is a decent possibility we will see them as well. We pass on a sidewalk and may or may not make eye contact. That feels different to me then cameras hidden out of the way that are recording my every movement. As I was typing this and shifting in my chair, I needed to adjust the boys. Using that example, if I was out running and had the same need, I'd look around, see no one, and make a quick adjustment, no big deal. I'd hate to think that someone was recording that and possibly playing it back later.

 

I'm also not convinced it keeps me any safer. If they truly did, banks and conveniences stores would never be robbed. Yet they are with tellers and clerks assaulted.

[Balta1701]

Balta,

 

I'll take a stab at articulating a feeling about this.

 

I agree that when we are outside walking around we understand we are losing some privacy. We know that other people may see us. That happens in real time and there is a decent possibility we will see them as well. We pass on a sidewalk and may or may not make eye contact. That feels different to me then cameras hidden out of the way that are recording my every movement. As I was typing this and shifting in my chair, I needed to adjust the boys. Using that example, if I was out running and had the same need, I'd look around, see no one, and make a quick adjustment, no big deal. I'd hate to think that someone was recording that and possibly playing it back later.

 

I'm also not convinced it keeps me any safer. If they truly did, banks and conveniences stores would never be robbed. Yet they are with tellers and clerks assaulted.

So, to summarize your 2 points...first, you feel like it's just a little bit more privacy than you want to give up, and second you're not certain it's effective.

 

On the latter point...saying something is ineffective is a little aside from the point I'm wondering about. I want the ACLU style argument. Either this sort of videotaping is legal and appropriate on the merits or its not. Whether or not its effective in preventing crime I'll consider another matter, but in the event of an actual crime already happening, the more video you have of the perpetrator the easier its going to be to find them.

 

I'll give you a great example from something I read (via the guy who rules the media's world) yesterday. Guy passed out drunk on his front lawn. Google's streetview people came by while he was passed out there, filming for their streetview. He winds up on the Google images. Once he's out of his doors, I don't see how he can have any expectation of privacy. It takes no effort by anyone and no illegal acts to gather up that information. It might feel creepy, but creepy doesn't mean it's wrong or breaking any laws. Any time you walk past a business, walk down the street, walk anywhere basically, you take the risk of winding up on someone's camera regardless of whether or not you know its there.

[Texsox]

We have laws that split hairs all the time. So videotaping being legal in one context does not automatically mean it is legal in all. For example you can video tape people walking down the street from eye level, place the same camera hidden on the ground to get "up skirt" shots, and it is illegal. So I would believe there is ample precedent to ban cameras.

 

I also believe there is a difference between specific locations and wide area surveillance. A well marked traffic camera or store camera is better controlled then thousands of ubiquitous camera that records everything in 10 square miles. I'd like to explore the presumption of innocence that seemingly is thrown out when you record everyone looking for crimes. I'd be more inclined to support this if it was in response to a specific crime rate in a specific area, and would need judicial review before being set up.

 

The Google thing hits a gray area between advertising and news.

[santo=dorf]

Installing cameras everywhere isn't cheap nor is it going to be to pay someone to try and watch 100 monitors at once for illegal activity. Let's say someone watching the camera sees a small dope deal going down. What is he/she supposed to do? Immediately call the police? By the times the cops get there chances our something more serious occured on the other 99 monitors, nobody saw it, the police are now at another scene, and nobody will be at the current scene of the crime because they'll know better to leave immediately.

 

It'd be a complete waste of cash.

[Balta1701]

Installing cameras everywhere isn't cheap nor is it going to be to pay someone to try and watch 100 monitors at once for illegal activity. Let's say someone watching the camera sees a small dope deal going down. What is he/she supposed to do? Immediately call the police? By the times the cops get there chances our something more serious occured on the other 99 monitors, nobody saw it, the police are now at another scene, and nobody will be at the current scene of the crime because they'll know better to leave immediately.

 

It'd be a complete waste of cash.

I don't believe most of these cameras are continuously monitored. The logistics of that and the number of people it would take would be daunting. The idea would be so that if something did happen, if someone was shot/robbed, if the London Subway attacks happen, you have multiple views and angles of the faces of the people you're looking for and the investigation becomes dramatically easier because you have all the evidence you need.

[lostfan]

We have laws that split hairs all the time. So videotaping being legal in one context does not automatically mean it is legal in all. For example you can video tape people walking down the street from eye level, place the same camera hidden on the ground to get "up skirt" shots, and it is illegal. So I would believe there is ample precedent to ban cameras.

 

I also believe there is a difference between specific locations and wide area surveillance. A well marked traffic camera or store camera is better controlled then thousands of ubiquitous camera that records everything in 10 square miles. I'd like to explore the presumption of innocence that seemingly is thrown out when you record everyone looking for crimes. I'd be more inclined to support this if it was in response to a specific crime rate in a specific area, and would need judicial review before being set up.

 

The Google thing hits a gray area between advertising and news.

Expectation of privacy is the key to what you're getting at. If I am walking to a car in a parking lot, or if I leave a piece of paper on my desk at work, I cannot reasonably claim I expect privacy there. Anybody can see me outside doing anything if I'm not on private property. At work, that is their property, and they own my workspace. If I throw a stack of papers in the trash, and one of them was a note to a killer I hired to off someone, I can't reasonably claim that I expected my trash to be private once it's outside of my house, sitting in the alley or on the curb (if I didn't want it to be found I should've shredded it). On the other hand - a woman has a reasonable expectation that whatever is under her skirt is private... unless she makes it clear she doesn't think so.