Political Crossfire Forums

indieinmich · Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Posts: 539 Location: michigan

In my town they are putting up cameras in various locations.
Apparently there has been a problem with some middle school aged children and vandalism,coming mainly in the form of graffiti.

My questions:
Is it ok to put up cameras that watch the general public every moment in the name of safety?
And are nuisance. crimes a threat to public safety that should warrant such an action?

Personally as to my first question Im not sure.I dont like the idea of being watched every second of my life but at the same time if I lived in an area where serious or dangerous crimes were accuring I could see myself in favor of using them.
But I dont think 11-15 year olds writing dirty words or silly expressions on a cement wall, picnic table, or trash can is something to get all in a tizzy over.

What are your thoughts?

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject:

use a spellchecker?

Their = singular possession
They're = Conjunction They-Are

Accuring = Occuring

Accept = proper spelling but different word, your Sig should read 'Except'

mmm...tasty linguistic fascism...

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

Chymical wrote: use a spellchecker?

How completely and trollishly unhelpful... :-|

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject:

SideTraKd wrote: Chymical wrote: use a spellchecker?

How completely and trollishly unhelpful... :-|

Ok, am now being trollishly helpful, pls see edit.

Now onto the substance of this debate, personally I'm fine with surveillance on public areas, never should such things be allowed in private homes without warrents and stric guidelines and safeguards.

The Government can watch us all it likes in my view, I just wish people would watch the Government more as well to return the favour.

For low-level anti-social 'kiddie' crime, cameras help a lot with indisputable evidence, however nothing says 'prevention' like proper parenting or patrolling the streets.

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

indieinmich wrote: In my town they are putting up cameras in various locations.
Apparently there has been a problem with some middle school aged children and vandalism,coming mainly in the form of graffiti.

My questions:
Is it ok to put up cameras that watch the general public every moment in the name of safety?
And are nuisance. crimes a threat to public safety that should warrant such an action?

Personally as to my first question Im not sure.I dont like the idea of being watched every second of my life but at the same time if I lived in an area where serious or dangerous crimes were accuring I could see myself in favor of using them.
But I dont think 11-15 year olds writing dirty words or silly expressions on a cement wall, picnic table, or trash can is something to get all in a tizzy over.

What are your thoughts?

It's a tossup, IMO...

The spectre of cameras watching everything we do in public is pretty damned scary. I don't like the idea at all. My gut feeling is against it.

But, then again, cameras only serve the same purpose that any police officer could provide, in that nothing you do in public is granted an expectation of privacy, and any member of society, including law enforcement, could observe everything just by being present.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14984 Location: Florida

indieinmich wrote: In my town they are putting up cameras in various locations.
Apparently there has been a problem with some middle school aged children and vandalism,coming mainly in the form of graffiti.

My questions:
Is it ok to put up cameras that watch the general public every moment in the name of safety?
And are nuisance. crimes a threat to public safety that should warrant such an action?

Personally as to my first question Im not sure.I dont like the idea of being watched every second of my life but at the same time if I lived in an area where serious or dangerous crimes were accuring I could see myself in favor of using them.
But I dont think 11-15 year olds writing dirty words or silly expressions on a cement wall, picnic table, or trash can is something to get all in a tizzy over.

What are your thoughts?

By definition, there is no right to privacy in public.

There is no way that they can keep track of everybody "big brother" style. The amount of data crunching required would be way too intensive.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

We've got an awful lot of CCTV in Britain - it's all very well, but the little darling cameras can't jump off the wall and actually arrest the bad guy when there's a crime being committed.

It's estimated that you're captured on CCTV several hundreds times a day in Britain. Do I lay awake at night worrying about it? No. Does there need to be scrutiny as to what such technology can be used for? Absolutely. My big problem with CCTV, though, is that it's an easy way for law enforcement to avoid that greatest of investment - uniformed officers on patrol, who can respond and prevent crime.

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

DSwain wrote: My big problem with CCTV, though, is that it's an easy way for law enforcement to avoid that greatest of investment - uniformed officers on patrol, who can respond and prevent crime.

Damned good point there...

Even people who don't care if they get caught later would be hesitant to commit a crime right in front of a cop...

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject:

Dswain, have you noticed like myself that whenever a CCTV could be remotely helpful in the solving of a crime it's always either:

malfunctioning
and old B+W camera
pictures were rubbish
just out of range
or it was too dark...

In my limited dealings (har-har) with the police, for one robbery and one assault, the cameras that caught all the actions and could have been used to provide sure fire evidence and identification were negated first by hoodies and caps, then by their innate crapness and in the last instance it was too dark to see what the camera was capturing! So in practice I have no truck with these things that only seem to work well WHEN THEY ARE CATCHING SPEEDING MOTORISTS!!!

Money over people as usual...God Save The Queen.

erm rant over...

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4382

indieinmich wrote: In my town they are putting up cameras in various locations.
Apparently there has been a problem with some middle school aged children and vandalism,coming mainly in the form of graffiti.

My questions:
Is it ok to put up cameras that watch the general public every moment in the name of safety?
And are nuisance. crimes a threat to public safety that should warrant such an action?

Personally as to my first question Im not sure.I dont like the idea of being watched every second of my life but at the same time if I lived in an area where serious or dangerous crimes were accuring I could see myself in favor of using them.
But I dont think 11-15 year olds writing dirty words or silly expressions on a cement wall, picnic table, or trash can is something to get all in a tizzy over.

What are your thoughts?

The more pertinent question is: By what right could you tell me that I can't record anything I want in a public place? If I, a private citizen can take out my camera and record things, why would law enforcement not be allowed to? Would you prefer legislation spelling out who and what can be recorded and when? You could probably get pointers on drafting such a bill from North Korea or China.

Recording an event is just a technological extension of witnessing it. What you're speaking of outlawing is memory.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Chymical wrote: Dswain, have you noticed like myself that whenever a CCTV could be remotely helpful in the solving of a crime it's always either:

malfunctioning
and old B+W camera
pictures were rubbish
just out of range
or it was too dark...

In my limited dealings (har-har) with the police, for one robbery and one assault, the cameras that caught all the actions and could have been used to provide sure fire evidence and identification were negated first by hoodies and caps, then by their innate crapness and in the last instance it was too dark to see what the camera was capturing! So in practice I have no truck with these things that only seem to work well WHEN THEY ARE CATCHING SPEEDING MOTORISTS!!!

Money over people as usual...God Save The Queen.

erm rant over...

Indeed, bang-on. Seemingly, the only things a lot of these cameras can tell the Plod is if it was a person or a tree that committed the crime. But as you say - the technology behind speed cameras seems to be on the up.

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4382

DSwain wrote: Chymical wrote: Dswain, have you noticed like myself that whenever a CCTV could be remotely helpful in the solving of a crime it's always either:

malfunctioning
and old B+W camera
pictures were rubbish
just out of range
or it was too dark...

In my limited dealings (har-har) with the police, for one robbery and one assault, the cameras that caught all the actions and could have been used to provide sure fire evidence and identification were negated first by hoodies and caps, then by their innate crapness and in the last instance it was too dark to see what the camera was capturing! So in practice I have no truck with these things that only seem to work well WHEN THEY ARE CATCHING SPEEDING MOTORISTS!!!

Money over people as usual...God Save The Queen.

erm rant over...

Indeed, bang-on. Seemingly, the only things a lot of these cameras can tell the Plod is if it was a person or a tree that committed the crime. But as you say - the technology behind speed cameras seems to be on the up.

That's because speed cameras are little money factories. You get a photo and a bill in the mail. Most people aren't going to hire an attorney and fight a speeding ticket, especially if they'd have to convince a judge that they're right and the camera is wrong.

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

Chymical wrote: use a spellchecker?

Their = singular possession
They're = Conjunction They-Are

Accuring = Occuring

Accept = proper spelling but different word, your Sig should read 'Except'

mmm...tasty linguistic fascism...

hookt on fawnix werkt fur me.

Hey! Don't bash the girl! My spelhling 'n grammhar are bad as well. The spell check takes too long on my slow PC.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject:

I suppose in the interest of making a positive change rather then continual bitching about our sad state of affairs how could we make standard crime prevention cameras as profitable as speed cameras? And Hence get the clear-up and conviction rates as good as for motoring offences.

Violence is going crazy in the UK, there is no fear anymore, from ASBO to super ASBO this Govt will Jail people who cannot afford their Tax whilst letting mindless SCUM walk the streets mugging harrasssing and assulting good folk in their own area.

If a camera catches you hitting someone, you get to recreate the event in court, with the parties switched.
If a camera catches someone being murdered/stabbed/ general GBH then the accumulated injuries should be reflected back at he who committed them...

then instead of SITTING ON THEIR ARRSE...the CRIMINALS could WORK, hard stupid rock smashing labour, indebted to the GOVERNMENT to Make money to compensate victims, provide for the treasury and THEIR OWN UPKEEP.

But no, that would be 'slavery' whereas min wage wageslavery is ok FOR DECENT CITIZENS

I've never been a human rights hater before, but it all applies to protect scum and does nothing to protect the decent and caring peoples of this country.

sorry enough for now...

skel1977 · Joined: 06 Jun 2006 Posts: 46

Chymical wrote: use a spellchecker?

Their = singular possession
They're = Conjunction They-Are

Accuring = Occuring

Accept = proper spelling but different word, your Sig should read 'Except'

mmm...tasty linguistic fascism...

I was thinking the same thing. How can people take a post seriously if they dunkin donut have a handle on the English language ?

By the way, that was sarcasmnistical uv me.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

sarcasministical? Am not sure that is a word, but it should be...well done you!

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject:

Contratualations on derailing a perfectly good thread Chymical.

Anywho, yeah I would be worried, the UK is much futher along, it really hit me when i saw a camera in a park with a sign saying (for your safety) underneath.

Lovely stuff, state far too big for its britches.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Contratualations on derailing a perfectly good thread Chymical.

Why thank you :lol:

If the state really were to big for it's britches though, why would they even need cameras? :think:

indieinmich · Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Posts: 539 Location: michigan

Chymical wrote: use a spellchecker?

Their = singular possession
They're = Conjunction They-Are

Accuring = Occuring

Accept = proper spelling but different word, your Sig should read 'Except'

mmm...tasty linguistic fascism...

Thanx for the spelling tips.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject:

indieinmich wrote:
Thanx for the spelling tips.

Sorry for being patronising, it shouldn't bother me, but it does. Something about sloppy writing being the precursor to sloppy thinking.

Don't take my word for it though.
George Orwell's: Politics and the English Language
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm