We can’t just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want

reply to post by A Fortiori


Cameras don't prevent crime? You have some stupid criminals where you are at.

By the way, I was talking about your everyday citizen videotaping and taking your pic everyday without you knowing.

Should we make taking pictures and video of people on the street illegal?

That would ruin a lot of vacations.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Cameras don't prevent crime? You have some stupid criminals where you are at.

Anecdotal evidence is "anecdotal" and the crime reduction could be based on several elements, not just the cameras. Moreover, eighty percent of crimes remain unsolved even with cameras. Cost effectiveness is close to $800K USD per criminal. Is the price such a bargain that it is worth the loss of privacy?
EDIT: forgot the "K" after $800

By the way, I was talking about your everyday citizen videotaping and taking your pic everyday without you knowing.

The everyday citizen has no ability to curtail my freedom. The every day citizen has no "power" and cannot, therefore, abuse the power. When cops were issued tasers what happened? People started to get tasered for arguing over traffic violations. People always abuse power when it is given to them. Sure there are some individuals who do not, but in general people do.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by dizzie56
My question is, is it worth having something that will end up helping convict people and also curbs some crime for losing more and more privacy and being told what to do?

My answer to your question as stated would be a resounding NO! But the question is faulty, as no one is talking about losing privacy or being told what to do.

Having cameras on public streets does not translate to "losing privacy". I'm all for privacy. I support it strongly. But public streets aren't private. And we cannot just do whatever we want to do. That would be chaos.

Could this idea be taken advantage of? Yes. But that's where we must draw the line, not at the installations of the cameras to keep crime down.

Maybe not here and not yet, but all you have to do is look at the UK to see the slippery slope and logical conclusion to all the cameras.

The latest thing in the UK is that the government is forcing some people to put cameras in their homes.

article

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes.

No matter what the government claims their "good reasons" are, any of you really want to see that here in the U.S.?

[edit on 10/5/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


First, salve and "nice avatar".

Secondly, because people will "jump" on this ... your example is about putting cameras in the homes of families that have been selected based on a level of dysfunctionality. The argument will be there is a reason in those cases and no one is putting cameras into homes of people without a reason, or that they volunteered for the study.

My preemptive response to those people is "yet". We wouldn't have expected security cameras on street corners twenty years ago, and we wouldn't have expected the "sneak and peek" provision of the Patriot Act even ten years ago. Everything is for our own good, our safety, the safety of children, etc. Some people are fine with this. I just happen to be not fine with it.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Maybe not here and not yet, but all you have to do is look at the UK to see the slippery slope and logical conclusion to all the cameras.

The latest thing in the UK is that the government is forcing some people to put cameras in their homes.

article

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes.

No matter what the government claims their "good reasons" are, any of you really want to see that here in the U.S.?

[edit on 10/5/2009 by centurion1211]

Whats that old saying, we are usually ten or so years behind Europe in "trends" and policy. They are putting those cameras into homes that have "dysfunctional" children. I see two problems with this. The first being whoever chooses to define dysfunctional can also down the line view more acts as dysfunctional. An example would be the kid steals so lets put a camera in there. Then, thats not enough, we say ice cream is bad for people so lets put cameras in there homes to make sure that they are not eating ice cream, etc. The second problem that i see with this is that we are no longer making the parents be parents. Why should the parents take care of their kids or even bother to help em out when they have good old government in the corner watchin their kids? I almost couldnt believe that site at first until i googled it and it came up with several other links. It really blew me back to think that a government will actually be putting in cameras in peoples homes to watch over them and keep them in line. We are screwed.

reply to post by A Fortiori


"The everyday citizen has no ability to curtail my freedom. "

How is having a camera on the corner curtailing your freedom?

How can one abuse a tape of you walking down the street?

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. So I leave you to your arguement.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

"The everyday citizen has no ability to curtail my freedom. "

How is having a camera on the corner curtailing your freedom?

I did not say that the camera had the ability--did you read the post? Police officers have the ability to curtail your freedom for disagreeing with a speeding ticket, or cursing on the 9-11 line, etc. There has been a clear abuse of power, not by all, but by some and I just don't think that they should be allowed to have increased powers if they haven't managed to show responsibility with the ones they have now.

How can one abuse a tape of you walking down the street?

In Virginia, police were using the cameras to record clothing, bumperstickers, etc and putting them into their Fusion Center database until the ACLU stepped in. They were cataloging regular folks, not suspects.

I don't like this behavior. Maybe you do. I don't.

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. So I leave you to your arguement.

Originally posted by centurion1211
The latest thing in the UK is that the government is forcing some people to put cameras in their homes.

article

From your source:

UPDATE: Further research shows that the Express didn’t quite have all its facts straight. This scheme is active, and the numbers are fairly accurate (if estimated), but the mentions of actual cameras in people’s homes are exaggerated. The truth is that the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour “supervision” certainly doesn’t rule this out from the camera-loving Brits.

Read your own source.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by centurion1211
The latest thing in the UK is that the government is forcing some people to put cameras in their homes.

article

From your source:

UPDATE: Further research shows that the Express didn’t quite have all its facts straight. This scheme is active, and the numbers are fairly accurate (if estimated), but the mentions of actual cameras in people’s homes are exaggerated. The truth is that the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour “supervision” certainly doesn’t rule this out from the camera-loving Brits.

Read your own source.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

I read my source. And I don't care what the government rationale is for putting cameras in people homes, I think it is a dangerous precedent for the reasons I've already given.

IMO, you seem far to ready to excuse almost anything and everything based on terribly weak excuses such as "the other guy did it, too", or "it's only just a few doing it ...", etc. Quite frankly, isn't it this "anything goes" philosophy that has helped get us all in the position we are in?

Originally posted by centurion1211
I don't care what the government rationale is for putting cameras in people homes,

Clearly, you don't even care if they did it or not!

IMO, you seem far to ready to excuse almost anything and everything based on terribly weak excuses such as "the other guy did it, too",

Your opinion has no basis in fact whatsoever. I have not said or implied anything of the sort. You're making it up.

It is incomprehensible to me that anyone here cannot see the danger in allowing the government to put cameras in our homes. That you cannot take the next logical step and realize that while the reasoning might make sense to you today, especially since it's being done to someone else, it is not a far reach to imagine not too far down the road some bureaucrats deciding that something YOU are doing now qualifies for monitoring - until we all have cameras.

Originally posted by centurion1211
It is incomprehensible to me that anyone here cannot see the danger in allowing the government to put cameras in our homes.

Who said that?

Quote them please.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


In case either of you care...

From the FIPs program:

Families will not be monitored by CCTV in their own homes. Through Family Intervention Projects (FIPs) we are supporting and challenging the small number of families involved in persistent anti-social behaviour. FIP workers spend time observing families in their own homes, helping them to recognise that their anti-social behaviour is unacceptable. They focus on the causes of their behaviour, and challenge them to make changes so they can turn their lives around. A very small number of families who need further intensive support are placed in residential units with project workers living with them – this does not involve CCTV.

So, no cameras, but yes to being placed in a residential facility with project workers living with the family.

Originally posted by centurion1211

It is incomprehensible to me that anyone here cannot see the danger in allowing the government to put cameras in our homes. That you cannot take the next logical step and realize that while the reasoning might make sense to you today, especially since it's being done to someone else, it is not a far reach to imagine not too far down the road some bureaucrats deciding that something YOU are doing now qualifies for monitoring - until we all have cameras.

exactly, one day it will be something that we do that upsets the general public, as benign as it could be, and we need to monitered. the slippery slope never stops, just keeps snowballing into something bigger. kneejerk reactions to problems never solve them. if these kids are "problem" kids and are commiting crimes, put them in jail or juvey or even boot camp. If they are too dumb to realize that their way is not the right way after coming out, then what can you do? You can't babysit everybody.