Video Surveillance - Compare & Contrast

[clarencebunsen]

Essay topics for the class

I. Does using technology to extend the view of a beat cop change the nature of surveillance? If so, how.

II. Is there an expectation of privacy on a public thoroughfare?

III. Is there more or less expectation of privacy at a ATM machine in a bank lobby than on a street? How does this effect your view of surveillance cameras?

IV. Compare your views of a camera in a police car windshield to a camera in a fixed location.

V. Would your views of a surveillance camera on a street change if the camera were monitored by:
a. A police officer
b. A neighborhood watch member
c. A grandmotherly civilian

VI. How does your view of a street surveillance camera compare to the use of electronic surveillance on the US/Mexico border?

Bonus question. Considering it's Latin roots is the term"Hidden Camera" redundant?

Note: All puns on the word "view" can be considered to be intended.

[frankcor]

Clarence, if these questions are from an actual class, I want to take that class!

I have stated before I am ambivalent toward the use of technology to extend law enforcement's view (in keeping with the pun).

I do not oppose the use of surveillance technology in public places because it does not provide any information to law enforcement that could not be gained through informants or undercover officers. This opinion has yet to be tested in the forge of debate and is subject to modification.

However, I do have a sense of uneasiness because of the slippery slope such uses present us. For example, within 90 days of implementing surveillance cameras in public areas of Houston, the Chief of Police suggested extending the program to include malls, apartment complexes and even private residences that have required multiple police responses.

From the Libertarian Blog: Chief Hurtt defended his comments to reporters by stating, "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

The slippery slope is real and compelling.

How'd I do, Prof?

[thelma]

clarencebunsen said:

Essay topics for the class

I. Does using technology to extend the view of a beat cop change the nature of surveillance? If so, how.

II. Is there an expectation of privacy on a public thoroughfare?

III. Is there more or less expectation of privacy at a ATM machine in a bank lobby than on a street? How does this effect your view of surveillance cameras?

IV. Compare your views of a camera in a police car windshield to a camera in a fixed location.

V. Would your views of a surveillance camera on a street change if the camera were monitored by:
a. A police officer
b. A neighborhood watch member
c. A grandmotherly civilian

VI. How does your view of a street surveillance camera compare to the use of electronic surveillance on the US/Mexico border?

Bonus question. Considering it's Latin roots is the term"Hidden Camera" redundant?

Note: All puns on the word "view" can be considered to be intended.

................................................

I'll try and give you my opinions on your questions. You might agree with me, but then you also might disagree:
#1 - YES - gives the Police more opportunity to be able to see what is going on in broader areas than just where they are patrolling.

#2 - NO

#3 - NO - I'm in favor of survelliance cameras

#4- Cameras located in Police cars are there to protect our Police Officers. In the event a Police Officer is injured, everything is captured on film. Also protects our Police Officers from bing wrongfully accussed of something they didn't do.

#5 - Cameras need to be monitored by Police who know when a crime is being committed and also recognize criminals known to them.

#6 - Both are being used to decrease criminal activities and extend the capacity of law enforcements capabilities.

Bonus Question: NO

[dgriffin]

I guess my answer at the moment is No to any kind of surveillance at all.
"Slippery Slope" is too mild, I think, to describe the potentially abusive practices that would quickly ensue. And, in fact, probably are doing so as we speak. While we sit here worrying and philosophizing, the folks we elected to babysit us are exerting more and more control over our lives. I don't need a camera on my house. I just need access to ammo.
(Boy, am I feeling my oats this morning!)

[frankcor]

Thelma, I agree on 5 of your points, disagree with 1 and 1 comment.

#6 - I disagree. Cameras will not decrease criminal activities. They are useful only for detection of a crime, apprehension and prosecution of the criminal. Cameras will not deter bad people who know how to work the system and who decide that brushes with the law are minor inconveniences and a cost of doing business.

#4 - Cameras in police cars also protect citizens from violations of their civil liberties by police officers.

[frankcor]

Dave, I had my multi-grain Ohs this morning so I'm not quite so full of oats as you. But the multi-grains are better for your stool.

[dgriffin]

No shit!?

[frankcor]

I shit you not.

[thelma]

frankcor said:

Thelma, I agree on 5 of your points, disagree with 1 and 1 comment.

#6 - I disagree. Cameras will not decrease criminal activities. They are useful only for detection of a crime, apprehension and prosecution of the criminal. Cameras will not deter bad people who know how to work the system and who decide that brushes with the law are minor inconveniences and a cost of doing business.

#4 - Cameras in police cars also protect citizens from violations of their civil liberties by police officers.

.................................

Hi Frank -
I stand by my answer to #6 and agree to add your opinion to Question #4 which I believed I address when I said cameras would also protect police officers from wrongful accusations.

Have a nice day......

[kim]

Wait...I didn't get a blue book.

[Clipper]

Must be Dave and Frank are both in my age group. That is the group where mutligrain and fibre content, become important everyday words. I gotta tell ya though, even though the grains and fibre may "smooth your moves", and satisfy the "urge to purge", you are both still full of piss and vinegar, hehehelolololol!

Must be a middle age thing. We have traveled from cameras to breakfast food and bowel movements.

I have deep reservations about cameras on street corners. We are entering debateable territory when we start putting cameras up all over town. Undercover surveillance is one thing, but 24 hour camera surveillance is another.

In the privacy of your own car, you will have a cop at UPD watching you scratch your nuts while you are waiting for a traffic light to change.

I am 100% for the installation of cameras in cruisers, but not so hot on the idea of stationary cameras on the streets. We cannot make the streets "crime proof" no matter what measures we take. This seems like a little "over the top" and expensive for the results it is likely to produce. Although I have to admit, if it saves a life, or convicts a killer or kidnapper, it may be of some value.

I think the jury is still out on the neccessity of such invasive wanderings into the private lives of citizens.

[thelma]

IMO, cameras are a neccesity in a society that has now become violent and people are afraid to even go outside of their homes in high crime areas. Not everyone, especially the Senior Citizens, can afford to sell their homes at a loss and move to a "nicer" neighborhood.

How far to you want to go in protecting the "rights" of the citizens? Do we protect those that constantly break the law, hurt others, and intimidate the innocents -OR- do we protect those that are an assset to society, pay taxes, believe in obeying all of society's rules, but have to live in fear because of the criminals in their neighborhood?

IMO (right or wrong), if it takes cameras to keep the "good guys" safe, then I say the hell with protecting the "rights" of the bad guys.

Remember - cameras that can assist the competency and safety of our present Police Force are still cheaper than all of us homeowners property taxes increase by increasing the number of Policemen it will take to walk the beat,and more manned patrol cars to keep these high crime areas safer than what they are now.

Bottom line - I believe it is about time the law bidding citizens start having their "rights" protected MORE than the criminals.

[frankcor]

LOL, Kim! You can use mine. I only used the first page.

While the cameras may not save a life, the first-responders will know exactly where to find the body.

[bobbbiez]

and who put the body there!

Thelma, I'm watching your back on this issue. In agreement 100% with you. You go girl!!!! ;D

[dgriffin]

Frankly, I'd rather let the cops run a little ahead of the game, rather than install surveillance measures. If it got out of hand, cooler head could always prevail and stop it. Here's a story: The local Kingston Police Chief was on his way to work one morning a couple of years ago when he was stopped in traffic by a train blocking the road. After waiting a few minutes, he wondered why the train wasn't moving, so he flipped on his lights, backed out of traffic and took the long way around to get to the train's engine, a few blocks to the north. There he was told by the assistant engineer that the engineer had left the cab for reasons unknown, stopping the train and cutting the city pretty much in half. Sensing there was more to learn, the chief waited another ten minutes for the engineer to return with a box of Dunkin Donuts in his arm and a tray with 3 coffee cups. The chief arrested the engineer, hauling him off to the pokey for an overnight and charging him with numerous violations of city safety codes, etc.
In retaliation, train engineers afterward leaned on their horns day and night as they moved
through the complete length of the city. Amtrak said they could do nothing, because the employees were unionized (!). Local city councilmen soon came up with a plan to install individual electronic alarms at each crossing. Only with these installed at a cost of over $1 million, could they then legally pass legislation outlawing ANY train horns within the city.
Is this crazy or what? As I read the continuing saga in the newspaper, Frank Dulin or Rufie would come to mind and I could see them implementing a MUCH cheaper solution to horns keeping the population awake all night. "Butch, go down to the where the engineers drink beer and break a few arms. Tell 'em if I hear any more horns, you'll be back to do the legs."