I'm not "calling for it" but I'm not totally against videoing happenings.
What's Your Opinion of Putting Spy Cameras On City Streets?
by minimus 115 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
heathen
I kinda agree with the statement that if there is a cop around the crime is less likely to happen and we know the cops have the technology in their cars . I really think they are doing it anyways here in the USA . To them they are trained to think like criminals so therefore doing things in sneaky ways is the way to catch them . I agree with the statement , " those that give up freedom for security , deserve niether ."
-
Terry
SPY CAMERAS on the street
What is the ____essential___difference between having a living, breathing policeman on the beat and a camera?
The word "SPY" has an inimical connotation.
Is a policeman a spy?
This is a non-issue.
It is hysteria by those with actions to hide who want a kind of "fighting chance" to break the law without getting caught. Like a handicap in golf.
Nonsense.
We need the enforcement of laws. Anything that aids the enforcement of laws has to make people accountable for their actions.
Being accountable is what Justice is all about.
Those who seek any advantage in NOT being held accountable for what they ACTUALLY do; are dishonest, disreputable and disturbing.
-
Terry
Last year, Britain's violent crime rates actually increased by 4.3 percent,
even though the cameras continued to proliferate. But CCTV cameras have a
mysterious knack for justifying themselves regardless of what happens to crime.
When crime goes up the cameras get the credit for detecting it, and when crime
goes down, they get the credit for preventing it.What happens when a crime rate increases? More crime, right? Right.
What do you want when a crime is committed? Facts? Accurate desciptions? Verifiable identifications? Right.
The existence of an eye-witness is hardly a deterrent to crime; but, an eye-witness is what you want anyway even though people are notoriously inaccurate in identification of wrong-doers.
In view of the above; which would you rather have if you were the victim of a crime:
1.No eye-witness at all.
2.A camera with the crime recorded for prosecution.
3.Just an eye-witness version of events.
I think the answer you give will go far in helping all of us know how rational a person you are.
T.
-
purplesofa
EvilForce,
so I am all for it. I have nothing to hide.
Sorry purps...but how many times have you heard this in the name of being more secure when in fact giving up your privacy rights never leads to being safer.
Go back 2 years in the New York Times and pull up the article on London's crime rate and the use / abuse of the cameras they installed there. The crime rate has actually gone up even with hundreds of cameras installed. They also went to the "camera patrol headquarters" and did some studies. Bored workers would zoom in on women's boobs and crotches. Train the cameras at inappropriate things and what not. So purps since you have nothing to hide wouldn't you feel slightly violated if you found out that for 1 1/2 blocks some letch was zooming a camera looking at your crotch?
This "I have nothing to hide" is as weak as "If only one person's life could be saved it would be worth it." Yet the people who say that still drive their cars everyday...and by not driving we could save 42,000 people a year in auto accidents. So it's a non sequitar.I fully see where you are coming from. I think for me it is a fight that can't be won. I choose my battles carefully.
When they opened up the President Clinton library in Little Rock last fall, the hospitol I work for beefed up security as this would be where any of the dignitaries would be taken. I am a courier for a radiology group and was denied access to a very convenient back door. I had to go through hoops and get special clearance to continue to work, without walking a mile across a parking lot several times a day.
I have to wear special ID with a barcode to allow me through certain doors. All the hospitols I go to during the day have cameras. I have become numb to it.
Every store in the mall has security cameras........I think just about every gas station has them to catch drive offs stealing gas. Banks have them, parking lots have them. The parking decks downtown have them.
There is no way all eyes and ears can be all places at all times.
I refused to buy an alarm clock at Sears recently as they wanted my phone number and address before it would even ring up correctly at the cash register. They could not figure out how I could buy a $10 alarm clock without needing this personal information.
I was refused help in getting a job with an employment agency for not giving them my SS#. I said when I get a job I will give the number........they have tons of files/applications with peoples SS# on them.
I have to comply to HIPPA rules everyday. I cannot have any patients films turn right side up in my car as it is a violation of the patients privacy. I cannot place anything on a counter where a name or number can be seen by anyone as it is a violation of that persons privacy.
I cannot leave my keys in my car, if someone steals it and the keys are in it, I am at fault somehow.
I do not like anything that is going on, but I feel I am a realist, and understand the seriousness of what is going on. My response was really out of heartfelt compassion for victims that I have seen helped by the recordings of crimes of abduction.
Until mankind is on the same page concerning violations of each other, we lose rights and freedoms right and left. We have the right to use good judgement in public. I do not particularly want anyone looking at my boobs or crotch and at my age might find it a bit exciting if they did.
We that post here and came out of the JW experiance are not stupid. They do have a message that is rather nice, that mankind has a conscience that is respectful and does not violate another. Many of us liked the thought of this kind of unity. Unfortunately they, like everyone else, want to control every aspect of our very being.
Anyway, this is a battle I cannot win, the only way we will ever have freedom is for the violators to be gone or reformed. Security cameras will not make us safer, I agree.
If my daughter were on holiday in NYC and happened to be abducted, I would fully appreciate if it were captured on camera to help to recover her.
Much love to you EF. Fight for what you believe in, it makes the world go round, stimulates the mind and often brings change.
purps
-
DevonMcBride
In Phila. a murder was taped on a city video camera. Thanks to this camera, they have a full description of the murderer.
-
tetrapod.sapien
terry,
i'm sorry, but it's not about being accountable or not. or not having anything to hide. or wanting to get away with stuff. it's about effectiveness vs. cost of personal privacy. also, if they can install them anywhere, do you think that they will arbitrarily stop installing when they get to your front door? whats to stop them from installing right into your bathroom?
i have nothing to hide from the law either, which is why the existing public camera's only bother me on a fundamental level. what do you say to the person who has nothing to hide, AND wants their privacy preserved? -
tetrapod.sapien
:The existence of an eye-witness is hardly a deterrent to crime; but, an eye-witness is what you want anyway even though people are notoriously inaccurate in identification of wrong-doers.
terry. i know. the victims need to be accounted for, and justice needs to be served. i know. and i would prefer to have a video recording of a crime of which i am victim.
but, at what cost to daily privacy of the large population of people who are not victims of crime? do we all give up our privacy more and more for the sake of the victims? is it like insurance? everybody pays, only a minority ever cash in?
what about the possible abuses by future presidential administrations who value the privacy rights of their citizens even less than the current administration? -
Terry
Let me ask this. What price is your freedom / privacy worth
May I ask you a question? WHAT IS PRIVACY?
How do we obtain it? Why do we have/not have it?
How do we get a "right" to privacy? Who gives it to us?
Can we give ourselves any right we desire or do we have to carefully define the nature of a "right" quite explicitly and demark where it begins and ends?
Do such rights as "privacy" begin someplace and end someplace within a context?
When you go out in PUBLIC can you be private?
definition: PRIVACY
Privacy is the ability of a person to control the availability of information about and exposure of him- or herself. It is related to being able to function in society anonymously
So, my question is really this. Aren't we being silly trying to make going out in public subject to privacy in the first place?
-
Terry
if they can install them anywhere, do you think that they will arbitrarily stop installing when they get to your front door? whats to stop them from installing right into your bathroom?
Who exactly are________"they"?________
Private property contains two words: private and property.
Private speaks for itself. Property means you own and control what you own.
There are actually two issues being discussed simultaneously. These issues get mixed together and they cannot be because they are chalk and cheese. (Not similar at all).
One is a theoretical absolute: privacy
and
the other is a practical matter: societal privacy within a context.
We can't discuss both of these simultaneously without tangling ourselves up in non-sequitars.
The theoretical absolute: privacy, is not unlike the word "beauty". It is conceptual and implies something seemingly beyond question. Yet, it is conceptual and requires precise definition because subjectively each of us wants to control the use of our concept individually without restraint. Who and what are beautiful is as illusory as who and what is private.
So, let us agree to abandon the whole idea of absolute privacy and move on to practical matters.
We crave certain privacy within the context of shame. We don't wish to be seen naked because of a sense of shame (when positively spoken about it is called "modesty").
We crave certain privacy within a context of secrecy. Our plans create an advantage to us when kept within a small circle of knowledge. How much money we have, what our weaknesses are, etc. makes us vulnerable to exploitation without privacy of a certain order of magnitude.
But, IN PUBLIC, we abandon anonymity because we choose to join others socially in a context that diminishes secrecy, privacy and shame. We give to get. The trade off is not unlike every other bargain we make. We give up our time to work for money. We give up our money to obtain goods and service. We give up privacy to obtain public goods. Etc.
Privacy is a practical matter or it is nothing but a floating abstraction; ill-considered beyond a vague generality whose comfort we crave just outside of rational definition.
The Uni-Bomber was hard to catch until he wrote public Manifestos and the newspaper published them. He violated his own privacy and the publicity was his undoing. Had he remained in his little isolated cabin in Montana he might still be at large.
My point?
There cannot be a right to be anonymous when we go out in public.
Second point?
The linking of public exposure with some vague inevitibility in our private property has to be DEMONSTRATED to have any place in this discussion.
Who gets a wire tap in our country right now? Is it persons whose observed activities create a hazard of a clear and present danger to society? YES.
Why link that with a "violation" of privacy?
Do we actually want people who create a clear and present danger to make their dangerous plans in secret with success?
How does an "innocent" citizen receive a wiretap or a hidden camera if they have NOT been observed to create a hazard?
And finally, how can any potential threat to society be dealt with? Is NO OBSERVATION to be allowed? If there is ____some__-to be allowed, doesn't it have to be demonstrated practically how far the danger invites the observation?
If we are not precise in our argument here we are just jousting at the wind.