One thing I never quite understood. What is the issue people have with cameras in public places watching people. It seems whenever the police/government/big brother wants to put a camera in a public place people go crazy about civil liberties and this and that. Am I the only person that doesn’t have an issue with this? I mean, I am not doing anything wrong, if you want to watch me walk down the street, go crazy. What’s the big deal? There is a definite line between having cameras out in public on the streets and having them in washrooms and what not, so what is the issue?
Just curious
And when a crime happens and there is no security camera, people get all pissy.
I think it’s funny that people claim that cameras in PUBLIC places is an invasion of privacy. Since you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, I’m not sure how it can be an invasion.
What’s the big deal?
I have pondered this as well. All I have concluded that is that it would make eventual resistance against the government problematic–I’m not saying, I’m just saying.
I think the govenment intrusion part can be overcome by having a cooperative program with the private sector to place and maintain cameras on private property and make them readily available to police for an investigation of a crime.
And QR, you are right–as soon as a kid gets snatched from the mall, everybody is clamouring for video, and if there isn’t one, or the cycle of retaining the images is too short, or its not high def, many people feel as though a duty was breached–negligent failure to have cameras scanning the lot and entrances.
Macro-lens cameras: no problem.
Cameras that can read the digits on my cellphone or a hand-held letter: big problem.
Highly sensitive microphones that can discern private conversations: huge problem.
The real question is (since there should be no reasonable expectation of privacy in public) is, are you as a taxpayer willing to pay all costs associated with those cameras?
The individual cameras don’t bother me. Bring on the security cameras at the shopping malls and the like. The problem is when government develops vast networks of cameras that begin to allow the tracking of an individual’s every move. I don’t much like that.
I think red light cameras are a travesty. I could have sworn the Constitution provides for us to face our accusers. These seem to be revenue generators masquerading as safety equipment.
Macro-lens cameras: no problem.
Cameras that can read the digits on my cellphone or a hand-held letter: big problem.
Highly sensitive microphones that can discern private conversations: huge problem.
The real question is (since there should be no reasonable expectation of privacy in public) is, are you as a taxpayer willing to pay all costs associated with those cameras?
Yup. If it can be shown to catch criminals/cut down on crime. I am all for that. Mind you, I am also the type of guy who would like a cop on every police corner, more speeding tickets handed out without lowering the violation and I also think criminals have WAY too many rights. 
The individual cameras don’t bother me. Bring on the security cameras at the shopping malls and the like. The problem is when government develops vast networks of cameras that begin to allow the tracking of an individual’s every move. I don’t much like that.
Why? They could follow me all day long for all I care. I am not doing anything interesting and I could care less who is listening to my conversations. I suppose if I was a big wig corporate guy it might be different since then people could acquire info on companies in this manner (which I would have an issue with). But for your every day shmoe, I don’t see the issue.
Maybe people (not you in particular), think they are way more important than they really are.
If I had complete trust in my government, then I would go along with some measure of surveillance. Unfortunately I don’t at this time, and would be inclined to go along with the ACLU. I don’t always agree with them, they can be fanitical at times, but they are the watch dog on runaway cliques in our government, and can help us all hold their feet to the fire when need be…It seems though,that it is all or nothing in these types of things. The pendulinm has to swing all the way to one side, before settling in the middle somewhere. I believe we are swinging far right now…Hope the middle comes soon…
I completely agree with Art and Monty. Monitoring at your private business or home, fine. Mass monitoring and data mining of everyone all of the time is too much. At a minimum we need strict laws on how long that data can stick around.
i wonder though. It seems to me ( as an outsider looking in) that what the US government has been doing lately is in fact, illegal. So saying you don’t like the status quo (which I can completely understand) is different from saying they can watch you in the street going about your business. of course, I am assuming that is all they would be doing and they would not as another poster alluded to, be looking at your cell phone #'s or personal papers. Of course, then I would also say what is the big deal if they are? What do you have to hide?
I can go back and forth all day long. I wish I could just turn it off sometimes. 
Just out of curiosity, do you guys believe you have an expectation of privacy when using a cell phone in public?
“I think red light cameras are a travesty. I could have sworn the Constitution provides for us to face our accusers. These seem to be revenue generators masquerading as safety equipment.”
They are or were (not sure now) trying to install those things here in Austin. They were talking about it on the radio and examining studies done in other cities that have implemented them. There were no statistically significant increase in traffic safety in any city studied and in one or two cities traffic fatalities went up (not sure if they correlated them with the cameras though). Some of the pilot cities had actually taken them down. If I remember correctly the ones they want to put in austin are would be put up and maintained for free by a private company which receives a percentage of all the fines.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html
On a related note I read an article that stated that there was a 30% failure rate for these things (i.e. about 1/3 of tickets issued were wrong). Eh, good enough for government work I guess.
Of course, then I would also say what is the big deal if they are? What do you have to hide? \
I have nothing to hide, doesn’t mean that the rules should change. A lot of people in the McCarthy era had nothing to hide either, but didn’t stop a runaway government from persecuting them… Lots of travisties if you go back through our history, done by our government, justifyied by some security issue. A lot of Japanese Americans can vouch for that… If we go back and look at all those instances where we threw the constitution out the window, in the name of security, I believe that most people are embarassed and ashamed about it. I know I am. I just wish we would learn something from all those mistakes. But I think the power grab that instilling fear into the masses produces, is just too much for a crooked administration to pass up. I believe it is us, the people that have to learn from those boondoggles, and force our represenatives to act accordingly. Fear is a powerfull drug though, and often overides reason…
Monty, that is probably the single best paragraph posted on this forum on this topic.
I can say that, secure in the knowledge that you won’t be adding it to your signature line.
vast networks of cameras that begin to allow the tracking of an individual’s every move.
As oppossed to having them followed?
Or having the store camera follow them around the whole time because of their race or they look “suspicious”?
I don’t have a problem with the idea of public security cameras. I would like to hear the evidence/research describing how/if they will be effective in their stated goal/objective. I don’t know that cameras are highly effective as deterrants or as “crime-stoppers” … enough to justify the cost. I would want to make sure that it’s just not ANOTHER feel-good measure to make peolpe think they’re safe when they’re not.
It would seem to me that most severe crime and/or terrorists attacks are enacted by people that have very little consideration of their own well-being, so I don’t know what good it’s going to do to have the event captured on camera if they don’t really care about their freedom or life.
What exactly would the cameras be used for, and at what expense?
Following people involves great expense, so that can only happen to a handful of people.
I am not talking about following around a store. I am talking about being able to track via automation someone’s every move 24/7. Orwell never even conceived of that.
I am not talking about following around a store. I am talking about being able to track via automation someone’s every move 24/7.
Well, that’s quite a leap. Why not jump right to cameras being able to read minds? Or see through clothes (Heaven forbid!) big grin
If/When that technology is available, wouldn’t the private sector use/sell it?
I am not confident the technology isn’t here now. Combine enough traffic cameras and the like, get the information to a centralized location, do some sophisticated image processing, and you have the ability to track someone quite well.
The stuff in the show 24 is not so far off.
The technology to read your license plate with the traffic cameras being installed at most intersections probably already exists. With that data, it would be pretty easy to follow someone.
Now, I would be inclined to let the gov. follow a bunch of known or suspected terrorists, or let the police locate/follow my vehicle around after I report it stolen, but I seriously don’t feel that the gov. has the ability to control that technology or information. I suspect that there would be a lot of abuse. Some jackass is going to call his friend on the force, or DOT, to follow his girlfriend around because he thinks she is cheating, etc. There is too much room for abuse, and not just by the gov.
This is a bit off topic but an interesting story which touches on this issue. Its about a guy who was detained for questioning when traveling back into the country. Apprently his name was on a terror watch list by mistake and it took him a long time to get it taken off since it was quite difficult for him to prove he was not a terroist. He’s some sort of artist so in response he started a performance art work with the idea of exploring surveillance and the good and bad of it. Using a gps and his cell phone camera, he’s been documenting is whereabouts continuosly for the past few years and posting it on a website. He’s got his exact location, a picture of his surroundings taken numerous times a day, what he’s eats, what he has spent money on etc. The long and the short of it is he can now prove he is not a threat but he has no privacy. (He actually seems somewhat ambilant as to whether the loss of privacy is worth never having to undergo an FBI interogation again!)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10540966