What's Your Opinion of Putting Spy Cameras On City Streets?

by minimus 115 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  First of all, a spy camera is one you don't know about and can't see even if you do. Thus spy.

  CCTV cameras are not invisible to those bothered to look for them, and are not secret; indeed often their installation is deliberately publicised

  I don't follow the logic of an argument holding CCTV to be an invasion of privacy unless cameras used for observing traffic flows are also an invasion of privacy.

  At this moment, as automatic number-plate recognition is developed software, and automatic facial recognition software is not nearly as reliable, I would say road-traffic CCTV is a greater threat to privacy.

  The 'future government' argument is void; like a malign future government wouldn't do it anyway... "oh, wimpy past governments didn't install CCTV with face-mapping, and if they had we'd now abuse it, but as they haven't done it we won't" LOL

  And of course whether CCTV reduces crime or simply MOVES crime is a moot question.

  And whether any form of visual recoding will be admissible as incontrovertible evidence within a few years is also worthy of mention; give me enough of a budget and I could have the Pope and George Bush sat down to a dinner of baby brains, all through the magic of CGI.

  Ask yourself; is the use of CCTV cameras to reduce crime functionally any different to a police force that had the luxury of putting observers in high-risk areas (which they obviously have a right to do)?

  If it is (say due to the presence of a recording), can the difference be mitigated by legislation (say 7 or 14 day wipe-cycles)?
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  :"It can be avoided be acknowledging there is no equivalency between: what IS and what MIGHT be."

  
  
  
  
• 

  Ellie

  Another example of the usefullensss of cctv is this.

  What if you were walking down a quiet backstreet, some thug comes along and for no reason stabs you, there is nobody around to get help and you are in no position to get help yourself.

  A monitored camera witnesses the attack and calls an ambulance, thus saveing your life.

  This is not a hiperthetical situation, it happened.
• 

  Mary

  I actually think it's a good idea..........If people knew that there were security cameras around, they might think twice before they committed a crime.
• 

  minimus

  You see, I think the secret spy cameras should be installed in a clandestine way but people should know they may be on video.
• 

  Terry

  :"How does an "innocent" citizen receive a wiretap or a hidden camera if they have NOT been observed to create a hazard?"
  
  if we are going to communicate here, a definition of "innocent" is required. i would be interested in knowing who falls into your definition.

  In the UK a person accused of a crime is GUILTY until proven innocent.
  

  In the US a person accused of a crime is INNOCENT until proved guilty.

  A person, in order to be arrested and charged with a crime, must be linked by demonstrable evidence with the crime. A salient feature of these procedings is that, once charged with a crime, the "innocent" have every remedy at their disposal.

  If they do not have money, an attorney is appointed for them. (Attorneys are required to donate their time on a rotating basis.) If the accused is not happy at any time with their counsel they have absolute right to fire them and another is appointed.

  An accused person has endless rights. They face a jury selected by a process that allows their counsel to dismiss any prospective juror on any basis they so choose so that, as near as possible, they face a peerage.

  The accused can call into question any witness and any evidence. They can challenge any point of law. They have seemingly endless appeals.

  Often, under this generous and flexible system, guilty persons go free through lack of proof (or inability to convince) to a jury.

  What is my point?

  If anything, OUR GOVERNMENT, is crippled by the rights of the accused in becoming the sort of UNTRUSTWORTHY superpowerful usuper of Constitutional freedoms you fear in your posts.

  Under this cloud of suspicion concerning Terrorists, the authority of government is straining against these checks and balances. A hew and cry goes up each and every time the balance tips one direction more than the other. A counter balance goes into effect.

  All government is a compromise. One side tries to ask for more than it knows it will ever get in the hopes it can bargain away the excess to achieve the tiny concession leftover in the debate.

  I think you are swimming in the tide of emotional rhetoric from the counter culture nabobs. We are a long long way from the SuperState of 1984 Orwellian despotism you infer here in your posts.

  We all must be vigilant. Yes! But, not hysterical and paranoid.

  That is what I'm saying.

  By dismissing the GOOD efforts to enforce the law through surveillance cameras we make that good effort the enemy of a PERFECT state with no agenda of infringements on absolute personal privacy.

  That is my only point.

  Terry
• 

  minimus

  You know, Simon has the ability to read all the pms here. Is that wrong? I don't think so. Just because he has the ability to see such things, it doesn't mean he tries to invade the privacy of people. In gov't, it can be the same thing. However monitoring our every move is wrong.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  We all must be vigilant. Yes! But, not hysterical and paranoid.
  

  That is what I'm saying.

  yes, absolutely.
• 

  Terry

  You see, I think the secret spy cameras should be installed in a clandestine way but people should know they may be on video.

  Quite a similar argument is made by the Gun Lobby.

  If potential burglars fear that every household contains a possible weapon they will be deterred.

  Rational burglars? An interesting thought.

  I rate criminals as lazy non-rational thinkers who are opportunists.

  Seeing a camera recording your crime doesn't require even minimal rational acumen. You avoid being caught by not being seen. Atavistic and instinctual.

  Crime might never go down by presenting the criminal with rational deterrents. But, after the fact of a crime, a clear evidence of who did what is awfully appealing to a victim and convincing to a jury.

  My only gripe with cameras is that they are so low-tech and indistinct in quality. High Def cameras are really what is required. But, I don't choose to make the good the enemy of the perfect.

  Terry
• 

  minimus

  Yes, better cameras are the answer!