Privacy - How Far Should We Take It?

An interesting thing happened where I live today. Over the last week 4 women have been raped. One of the rapes took place at a video store and the woman was dragged into a back room. Part of the attack was caught on a security camera.

The police have named a 'person of interest' that they want to speak to regarding the rapes. This man disappeared from his halfway house the same day of the first rape and has therefore violated his parole. He has a history of violent crime including sexual assaults. Because they felt that 'the public interest supercedes his privacy rights', they have released his name and picture ... which appeared on the cover of the newspaper today.

A guy I work with was just appalled that the police would do this. He says that it is a sore point with him. He hates that there are cameras on the street etc. and that we are constantly being monitored. And he raises the question of what if this guy is innocent of these crimes?

In this day and age of such things as the Privacy Act, we have to ask ourselves the question 'Where do we draw the line?' If we say that criminals shouldn't have any rights, then does that mean that if you were ever arrested at a protest you shouldn't have any rights? Or if you were arrested for possession of marijuana several times in your past, your picture should be allowed to go on the front cover of a newspaper as a suspected person selling drugs to children?

I, as a woman, a potential victim, am personally happy they made the picture public. I am just not sure how and where the line should be drawn. Laws almost have to be made as black and white, when in reality there are just too many greys for them to really work.

Good question, we have cameras on the streets now in the central city, but when we needed them most, a woman set herself on fire, there was no one manning the cameras. So they were a waste of time in preventing crime happening.

But I am all for cameras in dangerous places, doesn't bother me a bit.

I certainly do agree that this is a problem, and all available steps should be taken to put the responsible person in jail, but I also agree that invading peoples privacy is a complete desecration of the US constitution...

I would say that the idea solution in this situation is to make sure that the victims, or any potential victims had a reliable means to defend themselves and therefore not be victims in the first place.

Concealed handgun licenses work wonders in such circumstances. Of all the states that currently issue CCWs, rape has dropped a minimum of 10-15%, and in some states (FL and TX) up to 30%... seems the rapists (who are cowards at heart to begin with) dont like the idea that they dont know which potential victim might have a .38 snubnose in her pocket...

Well I live in Canada so the gun thing won't help me.

And then of course, if women are going to be packing, they should be getting lessons on how to use their gun, how to make sure the weapon isn't turned on them etc., and how to have decent aim.

The question is though DR, is are public places, like streets and amenities, private?

So can people walking on public streets expect that they do to be private? No you can't, and a legion of paparazzi would support that.

You are in a public area and therefore your rights to privacy have no validity, just as a photographer can take a pic of you walking down the street.

Now if a camera was stuck in your lounge, THEN you would have a case.

Originally posted by MessedUpAnnie
Well I live in Canada so the gun thing won't help me.

And then of course, if women are going to be packing, they should be getting lessons on how to use their gun, how to make sure the weapon isn't turned on them etc., and how to have decent aim.

Well, proper training is, and should be, part and parcel of obtaining both a weapon and a CCW. My personal suggestion to everyone I have ever talked to regarding purchasing a firearm for self defence is to budget at least an extra $150 over the price of the gun, for a full case of practice ammo. Practice really does make perfect.

NC,

Cameras in public places is a gray area... let me ask you, are you in favor of monitoring cameras on every street corner, running facial recognition software? Strikes me as a bit too close to the Minority Report for comfort...

Strikes me as a little too close to paranoia

But even still, no I don't have any objection to facial recognition software being used. It is in use now in European football matches, its going to happen, and at this stage the only people who will be affected are felons, which suits me

Originally posted by dragonrider
NC,

Cameras in public places is a gray area... let me ask you, are you in favor of monitoring cameras on every street corner, running facial recognition software? Strikes me as a bit too close to the Minority Report for comfort...

This is a very tricky situation, but usually if kept as simple as possible and logical it is a little more clear.

Releasing the picture and name: Probably not the best idea. 1.) They could have the wrong guy and put someone inocent in danger. 2.) Could lead to Vigilante activity making things worse. After all if the Law Enforcment know details about this person it shouldn't take much to track him down. Especially with priors, living at half-way-houses, etc....

The main thing that is jacked up in this situation is why was a guy with a Prior record of Violent Crimes and Rape roaming around in the first place? Probably cause all the room is being used up by "Non-Violent" drug offences!

Who is more dangerous? The typical drug addict who hurts themselves and need treatment if anything, or the guy who is already known for beating and raping? Anyway, I don't want to get off topic too far here....

Camera's on the streets or in typical public places? Really depends on how they are used. Used as a tool to help straighten out the facts in a case is one thing, but security cam footage viewed so important it alone can convict is all bad. After all if they are only in public who cares anyway, that's why it's called PUBLIC space.

Originally posted by dragonrider
Cameras in public places is a gray area... let me ask you, are you in favor of monitoring cameras on every street corner, running facial recognition software? Strikes me as a bit too close to the Minority Report for comfort...

Is it better if it's just some cop sitting in a room, watching the videos? Or sitting on the street corner with wanted posters in his hand looking for criminals?

If facial recognition software works (which it doesn't according to the just recently failed Tampa test run), what's so bad about it? If it's finding wanted suspects, and saves manpower/money is it bad? Are the police not allowed to hunt wanted suspects?

What arguments are there against public cameras? They're a deterant, they can be used for evidence when a crime has been committed. Is it an invasion of privacy if a police officer is stationed in a busy place watching a crowd?

To me, if cameras in public places are an invasion of privacy then so is any police officer walking the beat.
What's the big deal?

NC, you obviously come from a country (similar to England, guess the apple doesnt fall far from the tree) where people expect the police to actually protect you...

I have learned long ago that the police are simply there to clean up the mess after the event. Putting such a system in place does not deter crime, it does not prevent crime, but it DOES invade peoples privacy, particularly when facial recognition is used.

I also learned long ago, if someone is going to take care of me, its me.

I tend to disagree with the reported failure of the facial recognition software. I believe it likely did pass, and the report of failure was to assuage public opinion.

Its called lying. Its dont by the government on a daily basis.

Sez who? about it not detering crime?
Isn't that just your opinion?

Mabe you can take care of yourself, maybe you are profient at self defence and carry your own weapons, but there would be many many more who don't.

The old the frail, the sick, the young, some women, etc, are all vulnerable and easy targets. Your rejection of cameras on the basis that you can take care of yourself only serves to threaten the safety of others.

It is nice for you that you are safe, but what about the real victims, would they thank you for what can be seen as a self interested stance?

Originally posted by dragonrider
I have learned long ago that the police are simply there to clean up the mess after the event. Putting such a system in place does not deter crime, it does not prevent crime, but it DOES invade peoples privacy, particularly when facial recognition is used.

I also learned long ago, if someone is going to take care of me, its me.

This is an obvious lie. The government simply doesnt want people to know, because then the people will evade it. Plus, Great Britian already uses forms of facial recognition software. I saw it on TLC....

[Edited on 3-9-2003 by omega1]

NC, can you show me one instance where a camera prevented a crime from taking place? It recorded the crime, may have allowed assistance to reach the scene faster, and most likely assisted in prosecution... but did it prevent the crime from taking place in the first place, or stop it in the act?

You are looking at this the wrong way, its not "crimes are committed therefore cameras don't work".

Its "Crimes are AVOIDED therefore cameras DO work"

And indeed in our city, and from what I have read, cameras deter crime.

The monitoured central area of our city has lower crime rates now than previously, its like speed camera slowing cars down.

Once people are aware that they are monitoured the are careful not to commit crime in the monitoured area. People feel safer in our central city because of the presence of cameras.

Do you have any actual stats on this reduction in crime???

Originally posted by dragonrider
NC, can you show me one instance where a camera prevented a crime from taking place? It recorded the crime, may have allowed assistance to reach the scene faster, and most likely assisted in prosecution... but did it prevent the crime from taking place in the first place, or stop it in the act?

Crime will happen anyway. You're asking whether I would rather have a record of it so that those who committed the crime can be prosecuted? I'll take the cameras.
The average citizen arming themselves is an option, sure. But as NC says, not everyone will arm themselves - I for one will never carry a gun, nor will i ever interfere with the right of another to do so.
An armed populace will not stop All crime, or even most crime. It will prevent (or foil, perhaps) a few isolated crimes.
Cameras have the potential to help all of us. Where is the harm?

To be honest, I could care less. IOW, I personally, feel no need for the cameras. I just fail to see any problem with them.

Cameras don't solve a thing, I mean it's simple, you can't stop crime by trying to oppress it. Humans must learn to solve problems a different way. The entire system is rotten.

I am totally for cameras in public areas, whatever if people cries about their liberties. Only gangster and criminal will cry about that.

If it can help prevent or solve a crime,
..just don't film me at home, I sleep naked.

This man disappeared from his halfway house the same day of the first rape and has therefore violated his parole.

He's on parole...last I knew, this wasn't a full reinstatement of rights. Convicts have only basic human rights, not citizenry rights. Having said that, his "rights" weren't there to be violated. On parole, you're still a con who hasn't completed a sentence. I have no problem with what the police did.