Video Surveillance - Compare & Contrast

[bobbbiez]

Clipper,, You have a strange way of expressing yourself concerning Hillary but I'm afraid to say I totally agree with you. See, I guess you men and us women can think like each other, , we go in different direction but end up on the same street. ;D

SPEEDOS!!!!!!!!! ,not so sure about that.
Just speaking for myself as a woman, never really understood why guys thought we women needed to see that. Enjoyed more being left to the imagination. If you know what I mean. ;D, especially if one didn't have enough to fill it with.

Oops, guilty here to. Back to the original subject.

[Clipper]

Hahaha! I can't imagine me in a speedo. I really see no need to show off my "package" at my age. Hmmm. If I were younger and needed that sort of security, I could simply stop by Hapanowicz's and buy me about a 1 1/2 pound, 12 inch prosthesis, hehehe.

Oh yeah. If Hillary was the only woman on an island, I would have to become celibate until I could be rescued or would form a meaningful relationship with a palm tree with a hole in it's trunk. Just think, it would bring new meaning to the term, "tree hugger". LOL

[bobbbiez]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I"ll never eat anything from Happy's again.

You are a character my friend.

[Swimmy]

frankcor said:

Girls in bikinis on a public beach should have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

Nor any hot girls trying on lingerie

just kidding.... lol.

[bobbbiez]

Ok swimmy, that's one to be explained .
What lingerie shop were you peeking in??

[Swimmy]

clarencebunsen said:

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

Yes it does. I forget the case name, but Scalia wrote the opinion. The issue was whether a thermal imager used from the road to view not only whether a homeowner was growing pot in the attic, but also whether bubbles was in the bathroom and with whom. The thermal imaging unit was not widely available to the public.

In that case, Scalia opined that such a device violates the 4th amendment. He reasoned that it is not only unavailable to the public, but it reveals much more than just the mere suspected criminal activity. He suggested that instead of using such a high-tech device to simply call up the electric company and inquire about that home owner's kilowatt hours for the past three months and a copy of neighboring houses or comparable houses to the suspect house's energy consumption. The state, in its brief, argued that if you have nothing to fear, then there is no reason to oppose this device's use. Scalia recognized that anything viewed from a public road is not under a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the device that can see through walls goes beyond that policy and shatters any reasonable expectation of privacy which would render the 4th toothless, much like the 9th.

clarencebunsen said:

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

No, there have been cases where the U.S. Sup. Ct. has flat out said that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public road. But the court said that law enforcement cannot exploit it to obtain more information than necessary. In the particular case I'm remembering, the police attached a homing beacon to a car and followed it to a drug dealer's hideout. The court found this violated the 4th when the police entered a private driveway to close in on the drug dealer. Had they merely pursued the car on the public roads, they would have only found out that the car entered private property. That was constitutional, but to proceed on the private driveway and follow the car to its final destination, the police needed a search warrant because they could not find out where that car went after leaving the public roadway. The court did go on to further suggest that had the police used a helicopter to tail the car, then because the airspace is free 500ft up, there would be no 4th amendment violation. But the homing beacon was once the car turned off the public roadway.

It's not necessarily an issue of reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a matter of big brother knowing everyone's business all the time and people justifying it under the "if you have done no wrong, you have nothing to fear" philosophy. It's a hard philosophy to argue. But I will give an example from my own life. I dated a girl whose father is a local big whig politico. Since our relationship ended, I've been harassed several times by the police when I'm going about my usual business. They'll stop me and ask me what I'm doing, where I'm going, and why. It wasn't until I threatened a 1983 violation and going to the press with her daddy's behavior that the bullshit stopped. But having those cameras makes their job of stalking me easier, and legal. That's what they were doing, stalking me. It would be a stalker's dream come true, especially for the computer savvy ones who could hijack the system.

Sure there are many benefits for fighting crime with the cameras. But it should not be at the expense innocent law-abiding citizens.

clarencebunsen said:

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?

There is a greater expectation of privacy at an ATM inside a bank lobby than on the street. This example mirrors the telephone booth wiretap U.S. Sup. Ct. case of 1974. The state argued that it was a public telephone and therefore no such expectation of privacy existed. The defendant argued that the booth contains a door that closes the user inside and shuts out the world and under that theory, the court found that there is an expectation of privacy, as opposed to a phone that has no booth and an ordinary citizen could, with little effort, eavesdrop on the conversation. The court reversed the conviction because the police needed a warrant to place a wiretap on that phone booth. The same principle applies. Generally, you need car access to enter the ATM lobby of the bank, closing out the rest of the public and generating a greater expectation of privacy. That right is balanced by the bank's greater right to protect against fraud, property destruction, and crime. By having the camera at that atm location, it provides a picture of every user who attempts a cash withdrawal. And it deters a would-be criminal from trying to steal from the ATM. The camera is not there for the customer's protection, never was.

clarencebunsen said:

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

The camera in a police car is for police officer protection. It also is to protect the person(s) who are being questioned by the police. It's has dual roles and is limited to the traffic on the road. A camera at a fixed location serves no real purpose other than to monitor criminal and non-criminal activity (the majority falling in the latter category). It does not serve to protect any one. While the incident will still occur in both scenarios, in the fixed location one, there won't necessarily be any police officer there to remedy the situation. In the car-mounted scenario, the officer is already on-scene. The station is aware and ready to send further assistance if necessary.

clarencebunsen said:

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

No, I am opposed to a surveillance camera's use irrespective who sits behind the monitor watching.

clarencebunsen said:

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

The latter use serves a compelling governmental interest, i.e. preventing illegal entry into the U.S. and protecting our borders. The surveillance used in that scenario is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without imposing on my rights. In the street-surveillance scenario, there is no real governmental interest involved. Crime prevention is not it and has not been enough, yet, to allow an invasion into our 4th amendment rights. And as I conceded earlier, it would not prevent crime, just make it easier to prove one occurred. Find a compelling government interest and that the street-surveillance camera implementation narrowly tailored to fit achieve that interest (the standard required for the government to infringe upon a fundamental right, which the 4th is), and I will begrudgingly concede that the cameras have a place there.

clarencebunsen said:

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

Yes. However, the meaning of camera has changed today such that its latin meaning is lost among the general public. Therefore, it is completely acceptable for one to say "hidden camera". It is similar to how data has become interpreted as singular instead of its plural latin meaning.

[Swimmy]

bobbbiez said:

Ok swimmy, that's one to be explained .
What lingerie shop were you peeking in??

A gentleman never kisses and tells

[bobbbiez]

NOW, that is a gentlemen, One that has alot of class.

[countrygal]

OH MY GOSH........questions, questions, too many questions......brain in overload. The only thing I have to say on the subject is........just not in any dressing rooms please. Although anyone watching me change would run screaming into the night. The girlish figure isn't as snappy as it used to be after two c-sections! Blond or not....I've lost it and am having trouble getting it back. What was the question again?

[Ralph]

Considering the size of the cameras at our disposal now-a-days, "hidden camera" is a misnomer.

[Swimmy]

bobbbiez said:

NOW, that is a gentlemen, One that has alot of class.

and who seems to be finishing last these days.

[countrygal]

Good things come to those who wait! Hang in there swimmy.....she's out there and you'll find her.

[Swimmy]

Thank you, countrygal.

[Swimmy]

One comment about the speedos. I had to wear them when I swam competitively. I had all the girls' attention then I understand women's frustration when men have difficulty focusing on their eyes while talking with them. Of course while women find it insulting, I found it flattering. At least they paid attention to something, even if it wasn't my charm or my brains.

[bobbbiez]

Swimmy, just use the excuse some men use when talking to a woman and can't seem to focus on the eyes, "it just in my field of vision." Seems to work for them.